♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." we begin this show with shocking news, lying has been detected here in washington. mendacity, deceit, duplicitousness. saying things that aren't true. it happened, we can prove it.ne to be clear, news anchors didn't do it. news anchors don't lie. they are good people. neither do professional cable news commentators, the ones making millions on the side as lobbyists for foreign governments or big national corporations. commentators always tell the truth. and that's why they, and their scrupulously honest news anchor friends are so honestly disgusted tonight,

horrified really, by what retired general michael flynn has done. watch their stunned reaction. >> michael flynn lied to the fbi. flynn lied again and again and again to fbi agents. just lied. lies, lies, and more lies. >> hold on for just a minute about who is significant and who is not. flynn lied. the tone should be when you speak to a prosecutor, you speak to the truth. everybody lied. >> michael flynn was betraying his country. michael flynn was betraying his office. >> tucker: "he lied," says lemon and his news anchor friends. lied, lied, lied, lying kind of man. the worst kind. he could never work in television. for his crime of lying, michael flynn, the liar, may soon be locked away in a cell. that would keep the rest of

us safe from his lies! that day can't come fast enough say the news anchors. cuff him, america longs to breathe free once more. michael flynn will be 60 years old next week, "the washington post" calculates he faces five years in prison and let that be a warning to all of us. that's what happens to people who lie in washington. or does it?on from a golf course somewhere in dubai you can almost hear bill clinton chuckling softly, "lied under oath still ha ha ha. not everyone faces the same penalties for lying it turns out. mark zuckerberg came to washington last spring to talk about facebook, the soul- destroying social media company made him a multibillionaire. zuckerberg stopped by the congress where you might want to ask the kids to t leave the room for this, he lied. don't tell don lemon, mark zuckerberg is a liar. watch him do this. >> this is the most principle for facebook. every piece of content that you share on facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and how you share it..

and you can remove it at any time. >> are you willing to give me more control over myiv data? >> senator, as somebody who uses facebook i believe you should have complete control over your data. >> tucker: yeah, you have complete control over your data.y you control who sees it. you own it. that's really the most important principle at facebook. mark zuckerberg says so with a completely straight face. the only problem it was a lie. sorry, kids. according to a piece in the "new york times," facebook does not actually allow you y n or anyone else to control your data. not at all. in fact, they secretly hand over your data personal data to other big tech companies. now, that decision hasma made mark zuckerberg even richer,ad adding on the house in hawaii, probably. unfortunately, he has had to lie in the process. including to congress, and that's a crime. as rob sphere once famously noted, you can't break an omelet without breaking a few eggs. in this case, the eggs are your privacy.

apparently, microsoft allowed bing to see the names of your facebook friends without telling you about it netflix and spotify to read your private messages without telling you. now, there is no evidence so far as of tonight that facebook has a video camera hidden in your shower, but close enough. that's what mark zuckerberg lied about. not a small lie, really. what did mike flynn lie about? flynn lied about conversations he had had with the russian ambassador kislyak. you remember him. flynn said that he and kislyak had never talked about expelling russian diplomats or about russia voting in the u.n. on symbolic resolutions. t and in fact, they had talked about both of those things. the feds already knew that because they were listening in, secretly. there was nothing improper about the conversations that flynn and kislyakns had. the crime was the lie. it's always the crime. except when it's mark zuckerberg. mark zuckerberg can lie about something that effects hundreds of millions of americans, but it's not

really a big deal. zuckerberg is not looking at five years in prison. zuckerberg will not be sanctioned by congress ever. so what's the difference? well, unlike mike flynn,if mark zuckerberg is a hero to the american news media. he is who they want to be. he is richer than god. he went to harvard.o he wears t-shirts at work. for real, he is for open borders. all the cool people like mark zuckerberg. even foreign countries. for example, in the fascist government of china was looking for new tools to oppress its own population, you think they went to mike flynn for help? okay. i don't think so. flynn is tough on china, old fashioned as he is. but mark zuckerberg, by contrast, was happy to help.. as they say, mark zuckerberg gets it. 33 years in uniform that's not very innovative. two lies told by two high profile americans. one is going to prison in late middle age. the other will be available

for like, 40 years for commencement addresses and award dinners held in his honor. that's the tale of mike flynn and mark zuckerberg. it tells youou everything. joining us now to break down what's happening to mike flynn is harvard law professor emeritus alan dershowitz. he is the case of the book -- the author off the book, "the case against impeaching trump." professor, thanks very much for coming on. so, i read in the "the washington post" this morning -- >> -- thank you so much. >> tucker: i read mike flynn described as a double agent in the "the washington post." and then i saw the judge sullivan yesterday describe him as someone who had committed treason. is that the crime for which he is facing prison? >> no. not at all.n and i will get to that in a second. tucker, i just want to make one point. i hope you don't mind me making it. >> tucker: i hope you will. >> boycotts and attempts. i hate boycotts and attempts to censor free speech. i'm in favor of complete dialogue. but, i feel compelled to tell you i do disagree with the way you categorize mass immigration.

that's all. i just want to say that. >> tucker: by the way, i would expect that you would. we differ probably on a lott of issues. but one issue we agree on and i respect you for is your willingness to say what you think in public to defend your views, to have a conversation and to let others decide which side is right and that's something that i wish we were able to do a lot more of. but you are one of the only liberals had who will come on this show. >> i completely agree. >> tucker: amen. thank you for that. >> i come on this show because i have the right to say what i think. when i disagree with you allow me to say it. i wish you hadn't used that language. language like that was used to describe my grandparents and great grandparents and probably some of yours. so, let's move on. >> tucker: actually, just int point of fact since you brought it up, as noted on monday. >> yeah. >> tucker: that>> was in context of a conversation with an elected official in tijuana about the filth of his city, and he was complaining about how dirty

it had become, which was a byproduct of the policy decisions pushed by the american left. and i noted there is a lesson there perhaps for us. i would never describe people as inherently dirty.pr i don't think they are and pro-people. that's why i'm against abortion. strongly. >> i'm glad you cleared that up. >> tucker: i think it was clear and i think that the people who are mischaracterizing it are always welcome on the show to talk it through, and to hear my side and i will hear their side because, again, this is one of the last forms in america for open conversation. >> that's very fair. let's turn to flynn. >> tucker: i'm not afraid to defend what i think, obviously. >> on the flynn issue, there is a big issue, i have been teaching this for 50 years, should it ever been a crime to lie while under oath? i think you could make a very, very strong case. before you could be convicted of a crime for lying, you should have to

raise your hand, put it on a bible, look to your god or look to your ethics, have a solemn moment where you look the person in the face f and swear to him that you aren't going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. that's so different from when two guys invade the usual issues, and try to hang out with you and be chummy. questions and then trap him by asking him questions that they already knew the question to videotapes and audiotapes make it clear only asking him the question only give him an opportunity to lie. i really do think that we have kind of three criteria,ll just lying politically, it's done too often.t' i hate it, but it's done too often. it's not a crime. second, lying only to government officials, which is a crime but probably shouldn't be a crime, or if it is, it should be ami misdemeanor, not a serious felony akin to raising your right arm and swearing under oath that you will tell the

truth. there is too much lying in washington and too many, as you point out, correctly, double standards who was prosecuted for lying. in civil cases people lie in depositions all the time prosecutor. i tried bring a case recently against people who lied. prosecutorss laugh at you. lying in a deposition? that's like gambling in casablanca. it's just done all of the o time and it's tragic that it's done. i testified in front of congress about this when they were going after bill clinton. i had a whole session where i talked about how many lies are told and how many different places and how selective they are in going after people. that's one of the problems of not requiring an oath, you have an opportunity to

live at this pick people to prosecute of lying not under oath if is a lie, rather it is a crime too t lie to federal investigators. but it's not a crime for them to lie to you why? >> no.y not only that the supreme court has said it'spe perfectly okay for police and fbi agents to lie to you and that happens every day. you have two people who they suspect of a crime, they will bring one person in and say oh, by the way, your buddy just ratted you out, turned you in. and you will get executed unless you tell us that he did it, too. of course it was a total lie. they say the same thing to the other person and the supreme court has said lying by fbi agents, lying by federal officials is permissible and done all the time. but if you lie back to them then it's a crime. it's even a crime, the supreme court has said, to deny that you did something. if somebody asks you, did you do something -- a crime, and

you say no -- you double your punishment about lying, whether or not you committed a crime. the irony about flynn is he wasn't lying aboutiv committing a crime, i did nothing wrong. what he did was perfectly legal.in i'm still scratching my head and trying to figure out why he lied what was his motive? is it possible he misremembered? >> tucker: and by the way why were the feds spying on the incoming national security advisor? is that normal? i don't know. professor, thank you very much. >> comey told us, he said look, i could get away with it comey said. >> i don't know i don't think you should be spying on executive branch unless there is a good reason to do it. thank you very much. good to see you. >> thank you. >> tucker: yesterday, thepytiven president accused the muller investigation ininitemly and illegally deleting 19,000 text messages between peter strzok and lisa page. the doj claims they were not erased intentionally but lost due to technical errors.

speaking of lying, is that lying or the truth? tim fitton of judicial watch joins us tonight. hard to believe the department of justice would lie about something like that. are they or are they not? >> we don't know the truth. we have got these two categories of text messages. text messages the doj had or the fbi had back when page and strzok were not members of the mueller special counsel team, and there was a gaffe in terms of capturing those text messages. there were about 19,000 then they go work for mueller's operation. they get removed because of these text messages that think were sending around talking about insurance policies against trump and being pro-hillary and ig asked for their phone because he wants to look at more of these text messages.ee and their phones had been wiped. had been re-set. unrecoverable. we don't know how many text messages were erased by the mueller special counsel operation.th they removed him from -- remove strzok specifically for misconduct and bias that was found in his text messages, but no one looks at

his text messages from the time he was in the mueller special counsel operation, the most sensitive operation the justice department has been involved n decades. unbelievable.he >> tucker: investigations, by definition, are supposed to be preservingng evidence. do you think it's plausible that the muller people might have been in erasing evidence? that seems shocking. >> you know what? manafort was accused of withholding evidence. they didn't know for sure whether he was. they issued a search warrant and raided his home with guns drawn. that's not what happens when the government erases evidence on purpose or accidentally..s so bad, the special counsel you see in the flynn investigation questions about how that investigation was handled now we have these missing text messages. >> tucker: really makes you wish we had elected officials in this country could protect the rest of from us these abuses i wonder where they are. >> we need a special counsel for the special counsel. >> tucker: how about elect

somebody to do something. mark zuckerberg lied. so, do lawmakers plan to do anything about his lies? we will ask an incoming senator about that next.

♪ >> tucker: so, mark zuckerberg just got caught lying in front of congress about selling the deeply private data of more than 200 million americans -- probably your data, by the way. one of the more flagrant abuses big tech has committed recently. there's a long list of those. but it's hardly the only abuse. all the major tech platforms have colluded silent opinions they don't like, and destroyed the people who express those opinions. they have done it in the open.

we watched it happen.us google employees secretly discussed hiding conservative websites and search results because they are not legitimate. facebook founder, sean parker admitted that his company created an intentionally addictive product, like cigarettes, that could destroy children's brains, which is exactly, of course, what it's done. it all adds up to a terrifying picture. a serious menace to this country towards democracy, to our mental health. check the numbers on that sometime. to our cohesion as a nation.be it's a real threat, obviously. and everybody knows it. how is congress protecting us from any of these threats? good question. they're not. and they're not even trying. and if you are wondering why they are not trying, the answer might be in part, anyway, the outgoing speaker of the house, paul ryan. ryan didn't seem interested in reigning in the tech companies in any way when he was the third most powerful man in america. s in part, he was too busyer preventing a wall being built on our southern border to get to the tech question. f there might have been other reasons for speculating.ssss now that he is leaving the

congress and moving to the private sector, will paul ryan be taking any money from the big tech firms like facebook or google or twitter? seemed like an interesting question, obvious, no one has asked. we called paul ryan's office today and asked that question. we haven't got an answer yet. and it's 8:20 p.m. eastern..es we are going to keep checking and get back to you when they respond. ♪ >> tucker: so, the leadership of the house, of course, is changing. democrats are taking over the republicans still hold the senate. is there there any interest, will there be, in reigning in tech at all? josh hawley was elected senator and he joins us.na mr. senator elect, thanks for coming on. i'm not going to force you in joining me in pointing fingers as to why this i hasn't been done up to this point, but i ask the question, do you think the congress bipartisan basis going forward will recognize maybe there is tweaking that needs to be done in the

government's relationship with these companies? >> tucker, thanks for having me on. i certainly hope. so i mean, it's time that congress got serious about protecting the privacy, the data, the p personal confidential information of hundreds of millions of americans. and to see this report today that facebook has allowed these big tech companies, amazon, microsoft, spotify, netflix to have access to the personal information of users, after facebook said that it would not allow, it would not give away users' personal data is really extraordinary and, look, it's time congress did something about it, it's time the ftc did something about it.s >> tucker: you often hear people say congress can't actually act to regulate these companies because its members are too old and they can't understand technology.hn i will freely admit i don't understand technology at all. i try not to participate in it at any level, and yet the abuses are so obvious to me. it doesn't really sound like a very good excuse. >> well, listen, what needs to happen here is number one, facebook promised the

ftc in 2011 in a binding consent decree, they said that they would not share personal, private confidential data of users without the users' consent. tucker, it looks like that'stu what facebook is doing, though. they are sharing that data in order to make a profit, as you pointed out, without users' consent. number one, ftc needs to enforce the consent decree. congress needs to investigate, and congress needs to take steps to protect the privacy of americans. they need to make sure that americans own their own data and can protect it.t. >> tucker: so, this is a little bit out of left field, but the cdc came out with suicide numbers. suicide is one of the leading causes of death in this country. suicide has dramatically increased and a number of

people have killed themself recently. evidence connection between use of tech products and increase of suicide. is anyone at the federal level going to look a little more closely into this? it seems like something worth investigating. >> i think it is worth studying. look, it's time that we asked about the role of big tech in our lives.e i mean, we have -- you havebo talked a lot about the sweetheart deals big tech gets from government. it's time to take a hard look at those. the effect big tech is having on our personal lives. on our families, on our schools and society. these are major companies. many of them monopolies. they need to be held accountable. >> tucker: man, i wish i was in missouri so i could vote for you s again. it's so nice to hear an elected official say that i'm sorry to suck up. i couldn't control myself. mr. hawley, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> tucker: well, we are just hours away right now from a potential government shut down. the debate is over funding for the border wall. will there be a border wall or has that dream died? details ahead. t

>> one of the basic human hormones everyone needs insulin to live. >> tucker: insulin is one of the basic human hormones, everyoneod needs insulin to live. diabetics can't properly produce insulin, and that's a big question in this country. in america right now, 6 million people are dependent on daily injections of insulin to survive. it's a great thing they can do that. almost a century ago, scientists discovered how to produce synthetic insulin. the scientist who did that sold the patents to a university for one dollar. their goal was to help humanity.un

it turned out to be one of the great health advances of human history. diabetes went from almost a certain death sentence to a manageable illness, as it is today, or was. synthetic insulin has extended the lives of tens of millions of people.. in this country that seems to be changing. for the last 20 years or so, the price of insulin has been rising very quickly. each relative to other healthcare costs when top insulin drug rose 353% in 14 piyears. it isn't exceptional and the growth has shown no signs of stopping. thanks to price hikes millions have started rationing and gambling with their health and shortening their lives to save money they have no choice. a cheap medicine that your parents took for granted is now inaccessible to poor americans, already the group most likely to suffer from diabetes in the first place as you probably know a loft

reasons this is happening. f one reason is drug companies keep tweaking formula so their drugs never leave patent. they can't enter the market to compete. another is rigid fda regulations costly and time consuming to put new drug. companies use legal challenges to deter competition. and of course greed plays a role, too. that's a word we don't use very often, but it's still real. one of the deadly sins for goodis reason. whatever the reasons for the spike in prices in insulin, it's a huge problem. and you would think it's something that congress and the administration would consider taking action on. there are some things they could do. maybe they should streamline an fda approval process orat adjust patent law. maybe they should subsidize the creation of a generic insulin brand. after all, we spend billions subsidizing solar panels andnd electric cars only rich people can afford. before you give lecture about the market, remind you we do

that already. we are not scientists or economists we can say this is a real problem that congress appears to be ignoring. in october, the president pitched a plan to lower drug prices across the board tying medicare reimbursement to drug prices in other countries. republicans in congress and on k-street hate that idea. pharma's bottom line is important to them, and it's not an unimportant factor. on the other hand, americans are dying from easily treated illnesses. that's a factor, too. on the left, well, they don't care at all.l. at least not right now. their top priority is impeaching trump, not collaborating with trump on healthcare. just like on tech and other issues, they are easilyes distracted by superficialdi political signaling. santa foye is one of the companies now driving up insulin prices, but that company won some degree of credibility from the left last summer, and is now insulated from criticism. why? well, because, when barr blamed ambien for the

ill-advised tweets that got her show cancelled, that company tweeted that racism is not a side effect of its medication. and the left roared with laughter. go big pharma! if only they would roar about that company extorting poor americans with life saving drugs. like on automation or trade or global warming it doesn't matter when america's most vulnerable are hurt. actual most vulnerable people no one in d.c. and particularly no one on the left seems to care. not their constituency. so the debate over the wall on our southern border continues. not a single person in washington, d.c. is in favor of building a wall on our southern border. wa they are terrified, not because they think it won't work, but because they believe that it might work, and it might clamp down on a source, a ready source, of cheap labor. and that's why they are willing to risk a government shut down rather than give a mere $5 million to start the wall. what is going to happen? is the wall over? will the administration surrender ononil this? and what will the voters on either side think the outcome?

dana perino hosts "the daily briefing with dana perino."ti of course, the most popular person here on fox and she joins us tonight. >> yes, right. >> tucker: super simple question. m are the people who want the wall more inflamed than the people who don't want the wall?? which is the more, in the end when it's all over, a more powerful, politically powerful constituency? >> i don't think that president trump has fair weather fans. okay? i think he has strong supporters who understand that he came in strong, right? he said the wall is going to get built. f s mexico is going to pay for it -- i never actually took b that seriously in terms of mexico paying for it. >> tucker: right. it's hard to see. >> i think he has not done a good enough job persuading people to the merits why we need border security. look, he has tried. i do think that an oval office address on immigration security would actually be very helpful. he could even use visual aids. there is clearly plenty to show. and i think that there might just be a way for him to have a nod to reality.li

he is not going to get this wall funding before the end of the year. i think they are going to try to figure out a way to punt this for a little bit. now, he is going to have a different congress to work with. a lot of those members of congress had already voted for border security, which included fencing, which some people might call a wall. but, democrats, many of them who are running for president,, right? they are already in congress.en they -- it's like they can't say the w-word. they can't say "wall." they can call it all sorts of other things. not "wall." i think there might be room for compromise here in the new year on the merits. on the politics of it. well will the democrats continue to push backprco against him oh ha ha we proved youic wrong. mexico didn't pay for it you didn't get your wall. maybe there is a political cost to that as well. people understand that our borders need to be secure and that we can be a welcoming, opening, compassionate people at the same time. >> tucker: so, for whatever reason, and i think it's more complicated than democrats opposing it, i think a lot of republicans in the current

congress aren't fully on board with the wall, either. hard to get this through the congress. what if the president said just announced we are pulling our troops out of syria? c what if he were to say, i'm going to take the cost savings from that and apply it to border security? >> well, he could say that but it's just not how the system works, right? there is many that's programmed for certain places. now, the president has saidtare to his cabinet, look for any money that we could put toward this virtual wall, border security. wall, whatever you are going to call it. the democrats are going to fuss about that because technical reasons, reprogramming money is not that easy to do. the president has two opportunities coming up in the next six weeks. he will have the state of the union. that's a big moment, right? that's all eyes on the president, and then he has a week later or two two weeks later a budget proposal. a budget proposal is a prioritizing document. the president is say this is what i agree with -- i feel w like his fans are concerned

there is not going to be wall, give him a minute. give him a chance. this is not a sprint. he is in a marathon. >> tucker: you think it is -- you think it is at least plausible that in the next two years some kind of wall like structure appears on the southern border? >> i feel like is it. it is possible to get border security funding and for construction to start. will that look like a steel wall all across the border? probably not. but no matter what president trump gets in terms of border security, he is going to call that a wall.er is he a good communicator. he will figure that out. and no matter what, theur democrats will say, see, we told you he wasn't going to get that steel wall all across the border. but, border security, i think, is a real possibility. i think there are new members of congress who are going to be willing.g. remember, this for republicans and democrats,s there is a lot more veterans that just got elected to congress. they are used to working with the other side. they are responsible people who care deeply about the

national security of the united states.s. the president ought to invite all of them,th democrats, republicans, bring that coalition together. really that's a exciting group. and that america has a lot to be proud of, that these veterans have come back and still willing to serve their country, just in a different way. >> tucker: interesting idea. >> i know i'm too optimistic for you. a little bit. >> tucker: no! trust me, this week i'm looking for all optimism possible and you are an everflowing well-spring of optimism. >> i'm glad i could be here. >> tucker: you are loved. dana perino, great to see you. well, american forces are withdrawing from syria. is that good for the world and more important, is it good for the united states? we will unpack its effects after the break. ultimate feast time it'sat red lobster.r own pick four of ten favorites to create the ultimate feast you've been dreaming of. like lobster mac & cheese. or tender snow crab. so hurry in before new create your own ultimate feast ends.

♪ >> tucker: the war on christmas doesn't exist, obviously. you know that, you would have to be a moron, or some kind of fox news viewer to think there is a war on christmas. and nowhere does the war on christmas exist less than in china. and that's why the city officials of lang fang, china have issued a total ban on the celebration of christmas. that means no santa, no lights, and obviously no nativity scene. the ban is part of a wider

religious crackdown in china, which has seen churches shut down, and believers thrown in prison. this is a story that hasn't gotten a ton of ink here from elites getting rich in china. even in assad, syria, many christians will happily celebrate christmas without oppression.pi take a guess which countries elites despise and which ones they suck up to. maybe that's why they love china's government. beijing does what washington wishes it could do, with more efficiency, too. want to bring major development tonight in america's involvement in syria. despite heavy pressure from saudi arabia and thousands of foreign policy experts, the united states has managed to avoid a full intervention into the syrian civil war, praise god. now we are finally pulling out the forces we have got there trace gallagher has more on that. trace? >> tucker, the decision to remove the entire u.s. forcece from syria, more than 2,000

troops, surprised virtually everyone and it officially marked the end of an extended ground campaign against isis. moments ago the president released this video statement. watch. >> i have been president for almost two years and we have really stepped it up and we have won against isis. b we have beaten them, and we have beaten them badly. we have taken back the land and now it's time for our troops to come back home. >> white house press secretary sarah sanders says this does not end the global campaign against isis quoting "the united states and our allies stand ready tree engagead at all levels to defend american interests whenever necessary." trump ally and frequent advisor senator lindsey graham does not like it. watch. d >> isis is more likely tosi come back because i don't agree with the president that isis is defeated in syria and iraq.. >> florida senator marco a rubio called the decision a major blunder. defense secretary james mattis and national security

advisor john bolton have both argued that a precipitous withdrawal in syria would embolden isis to make a come back. but kentucky g.o.p. senator rand paul applauded the move and israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu said the u.s. pull-out will not impede his country's ability to defend itself against regional threats.en tucker? >> tucker: trace gallagher great to see you tonight. thank you for that. david tafuri is a former obama campaign advisor. thank you so much for coming on. moments like this are so instructive because they divide the world into very clear sectors. you sort of know who is on whose side. the rationale has changed. s people are saying, we need to fight isis, but that's not really the point. the point is to counter balance russia and iran. and i'm wondering is that a,g our goal? b, achievable with 2,000it troops in syria? like, what actually is the

goal? i'm losing track. >> well, there are a couple goals. it's to fight isis. it's also to push back on iran and on russia. so, what is stunning about t this development is all of president trump's foreign policy advisors and top military advisors were against this decision. and he reversed them today. suddenly, in a rash decision. now, the reason why -- >> tucker: they the same people who think we should stay in afghanistan, right? >> some of them are -- the reasons are different.t. look, trump's top policy advisors said we are going to stay in syria until we have one, rolled back iran. that has not happened. two, defeated isis. we have made major progress in fighting isis, but we haven't fully defeated them. i was in iraq in october. nobody on the ground in iraq tells me we defeated isis there, and isis is even stronger in syria, still. moreover, all of trump's policy advisors have said we should stay in syria until there is a political solution in syria. none of those three things have happened. >> tucker: can i stress maybe another option? there wasn't actually isise in syria when the assad government controlled the

whole country, christians and religious minorities, a lot of them, lived in relative peace. now they are hunted down and murdered. why wouldn't it just be the simplest, most elegant, best a solution for everyone involved if assad managed his entire country again? c >> because you are ignoring the history and development of the revolution in syria. the revolution in syria -- >> tucker: it just happened a few years ago. >> it happened in 2011. it happened organically, right? syria was in authoritarian state before that tons over pressure -- >> tucker: is there non-authoritarian state in that region other than israel? >> there are less authoritarian states. >> tucker: they are -- jordan is authoritarian state. criticize the king and see what happens. >> you cannot compare jordan to syria. you cannot even compare syria to iraq. >> tucker: i'm just saying authoritarian justifies nothing. they are all authoritarian. >> this was organic

revolution started by the syrian people. the majority of whom are sunni arab. they stood up against assad. he chose, rather than reconcile with them, he chosee o mow them down and slaughter tens of thousands of innocent, peaceful protesters. that's how the revolution began. >> tucker: i'm not defending assad's character. i'm saying -- >> good, you shouldn't. >> tucker: i'm not syrian. w i don't work for assad. i'm american. i want to know what's best for us. if you are worried about the b chaos and the huge refugee problems caused by this civil war, and by the i emergence of isis, again, abetted by the civil war, then, why wouldn't you long for the days where christians could live unmolested in syria under this authoritarian assad? i'm totally missing it. what am i missing? >> this is actually going to cause more refugees. okay? northeastern syria right now is secure.he the reason it's secure is because of the great work by our u.s. special forces working with the fdf. the local syrian and moderate sunni forces on the ground.

they secured it, and there are less refugees coming from that area. people can say there peacefully not getting bombed by assad and when we pull out it is going to cause a massive wave of syrian refugees, again, forces are going to go inn and slaughter the forces that we have been working with on the ground. assad forces, iranian militiae forces and possibly even russia forces. >> tucker: so we're responsible for that? this is halfway around the world. we have crises likere venezuela's right there. mexico has probably as many murders as syria. i mean, close, right? so, i'm just saying there are a lot of things going on. we have a moral obligation to keep 2,000 american troops in this country around the world because, why?ps t i'm honestly confused. >> well, first of all, wehe are there already, and it's successful. so why pull out? we also do have some obligation of forces on the ground who fought bravely alongside us.. moreover, this is going to impact us because isis will

come back.e and if we don't have forces on the ground to monitor isis and to continue to combat isis, isis will come back -- isis are sworn enemies of the u.s. they want to kill americans. and when they becomeen stronger in syria, they will strike out against america again.n. your viewers should worrybo about their own security because of this decision. >> tucker: there are a lot s of reasons to worry about our own security. a lot. many. and our mental health and j our economy and our healthcare system. a lot of things to worry about.ha but, by the standards that you have just articulated like we are never going to leave there or afghanistan or any place that we have been for more than eight months. sn >> i wouldn't say we were never going to leave there. we have to see progress on the ground. we have to see full defeat of isis. >> tucker: okay. >> we have to see political process. revolution in syria. there ought to be a democracy in syria. >> tucker: who cares aboutke that? >> who cares about democracy?

>> tucker: what i care about is what happen what is happening to the christians there. nobody cares. evade iraq. huge christian community. >> who are killing the christians in iraq? >> of course, but i'm just saying why don't we make. >> islamic militants are killing christians in juan iran. >> tucker: make it explicit concern of the to kill we don't let them. >> in concern of the u.s. to protect all minorities in syria and iraq which the christian minorities are important part of. >> tucker: they don't seem that important to anyone here. i hope they are. they are important to me i hope they are important to. democrats claim to care about sexual harassment so very much because they are good people. are they prepared to expose the congressman who paid your tax dollars in hush money to accusers? it's a pretty simple question. we will see if we can get an answer to it after the break.

(♪light musical cords)

♪ >> tucker: a couple weeks ago, we invited on senator kevin parker, a democrat who wants to force all citizens in the state of new york to turn over their a social media passwords so their accounts can be inspected by the thought police before they

buy guns. if they say something naughty or threatening: no gun. well, given that, we are fascinated to see the news yesterday. parker grew angry with the republican spokesperson and tweeted, quote, "kill yourself." well, the irony, obviously, pretty obvious, so parker apologized. he said he was making a donation to the national alliance on mental illness. we applaud that donation. has he learned the lesson embedded in his own actions? the antigun bill he sponsored iu still pending in the new york state legislature. we have asked senator parker to come back on this show to explain once again why he ought to have the power to police thought crime on twitter and, by the way, should he, given his record, be allowed to own a gun? so far, his office has not responded. o we will keep asking him. great guest. happy to have him again. well, yesterday on capitol hill, the senate minority leader chuck schumer sharply

opposed a proposal to give the president enforcement "slush fund," as he called it? >> leader mcconnell proposed the bipartisan senate dhs bill, which has 1.6 billion for border security plus a 1 billion-dollar slush fund for the president to use for his radical immigration agenda. i called leader mcconnell and told him we would not accept their 1 billion-dollar slush fund, s and that our offers to fund the government remain. >> tucker: don't take those words the wrong way. the problem democrats have is with border enforcement. they don't have a problem with slush funds. congress loves slush funds. for years, congress have maintained a slush fund at your expense, taxpayer funded, to pay off people who accuse members of congress of sexual harassment. the democrats will control the house in just a

couple weeks, of course. are they going to end the slush fund and more to the point will they tell us who has been protected by it? what are the names? betty nance is president of concerned women for america and she joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> yes. >> tucker: this seems like a s simple ask, why shouldn't the public know who got paid with our money to settle these claims? >> that's a very good question. concerned women more americas sent thousands of petitions asking congress to tell us. over 20 years, 264 cases, $15 million of our money was paid out to hide what members of congress did. these weren't littles allegations. these were big things. we have the case of blake farnhold, who sexually harassed his communications director. shared his sexual fantasies about her, and when she dared to complain, he fired her. and you remember eric massa and his groping of young men, and then he called it "tickle fights." he had to pay out $100,000 of our money. >> tucker: taxpayer money.papa

>> taxpayer money, and we were never paid back. congress did just pass a piece of compromise legislation, but it doesn't do anything about what we just talked about. it doesn't pay back at all the slush fund that the taxpayers paid out to cover up the wrongdoing by members of congress. >> tucker: now, do we know the identities of the people on whose behalf these payments were made? >> no. t ted way, foia doesn't apply to congress. isn't that interesting? >> tucker: so nancy pelosi america's chief defender of women, she has told us that many times. she will be in charge of this. she can release these names if she wanted to. will she want to? will she? >> we have called on her to do that.t but so far has chosen to shield her colleagues. she even went as far as to say that john conyers was hero and a great american. remember john connier hosted meetings with his staff in his underwear and caught on film on video on

an airline flight on the taxpayer dollars watching porn.. this is the guy, by the way, who used to be the judiciary committee chairman who had oversight over pornography. you can't make this stuff up. the new bill does make someup improvements and going forward requires restitution. but it's not clear whether or not even then we will know for sure who actually is the perpetrator, because in the new legislation, you just disclose the office. it could be the chief of staff. it could be the director the press secretary and they are going to write off their boss.o >> tucker: it could be the member. >> it could be the member. transparency. >> tucker: you will keep pushing. >> i will keep pushing, i promise. >> tucker: penny nance, it seems like a simple ask. i hope you get it. thank you. permanent washington cares a great deal protecting the way things are, the status quo.

it's great for them. they get richer and many believe they are morally superior to you and that's why they destroy anyone who threatens the status quo. mike flynn, for example is being destroyed. mark zuckerberg, as well,, being protected by the people who make those decisions. the establishment has become so obsessed with crushing free speech. it's getting harder and harder for them to win arguments on the merits. o the best option then is to keep the arguments from being made at all. when you can tar your opponent as immoral as a bigot, you don't have to defend your own position. you can just do what you want. you can also ruin the lives 6 anyone who gets in your way and feel good about it. how do we get to that place? that entire story is in "ship of fools: how the ruling class is bringing america to the brink of revolution."" christmas is coming. this tells a story that might rattle you but still worth knowing. find it on our website tuckercarlson.com. that's about it for us tonight. be back tomorrow night at

8:00 p.m. the show that is the sworn enemy and we mean it of lying pomposity, smugness and group think. the show that says what we think is true, whether they like it or not. good night from washington.he sean hannity is next. dan bongino is sitting in for sean. sean. >> dan: i put a tie on for this. what do you think? >> good tie, too.o >> dan: my wife bought it for me. i have a terrible taste in ties. hush fund story a disgrace. thanks for covering that.. welcome to "hannity." i'm dan bongino in tonight for sean. at this hour we have breaking news on multiple fronts. first, a government shut down has likely been avoided. the funding for a southern border wall still hangs in the balance. also tonight the president's sweeping criminall justice reform bill has passed the senate with bipartisan support. so what does it all mean for you? joining us now with more from our nation's capital is ellison barber. ellison? >> hi, dan. yeah, the deadline to fund roughly a quarter of the federal government is of course friday at midn